The result was keep. The article has been significantly improved since its nominations and seems to meet basic notability standards. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page does not show notability, and has no references. It seems like it is nothing besides an advert for the company to sell this software. Tootitnbootit (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete as yummy spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very likely a fake bio, but even if not it hardly meets WP:MUSIC. bender235 (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus is the as this article is a BLP with no references and no indication that it meets the notability mentioned in the essay at WP:MANOTE -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability. I originally CSD-A7ed this, but was persuaded on my talk page to give it a try at AFD. Ultimately, IMHO, I just do not see the notability of this individual. A number of links were given on my talk page at User talk:TexasAndroid#Hideki Shiohira article - please restore, but IMHO none of them meet the requirements for notability references. Reliable, Independent, non-trivial references.
The person debating with me is of the opinion that the subject's notability is demonstrated by their ranking in their martial art. But that's simply not a valid notability criteria as far as I am aware. Even on WP:MANOTE, an essay about martial arts notability, ranking in skill is not listed as a potential notability criteria for martial artists.
As a side note, I view this AFD as something of a test case. Depending on the outcome of it, I may submit to AFD more MA bio articles were the onlt apparent notability is the subject's skill level and/or ranking. TexasAndroid (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax article. No reliable sources exist that support the remainder of the biography's content Armchair QB (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was just recreated after it was Speedy deleted hours ago. Fails WP:BIO Possibly COI need to be SALTED Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added in references to Thai media. Gnews couldn't search in Thai! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thai888 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC) — Thai888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"COI needs to be SALTED" I can find what COI means, but what does SALTED mean in this context?Thai888 (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 01:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary POV fork with massive WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE problems. Consensus seems to have rejected this kind of article previously- see, for example, Dick Cheney's health. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 23:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has cites no references except itself. I don't see where it meets any of the criteria at WP:NBOOK. Papaursa (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Afikoman. JForget 01:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page is entirely based on the page creator's doctoral thesis. Without any other refs, it appears to be original research. Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this page does not meet the criterion WP:Notability. Please see the discussion page for my reasoning. Math31415 (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that this isn't a hoax. If it isn't, I can't find any reliable sources sufficient to establish notability, so he doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. It can be argued that it can be merged/redirected to Beastie Boys but he isn't even mentioned there, which is part of the reason I think this may be a hoax. J04n(talk page) 19:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some hit in Google New archive, some mentions in big papers but not enough to make an artilce out of Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notable only for who he is related to (father of Gray Davis and son of a wealthy man), but notability is not inherited. The article is heavily sourced, but virtually all the sources are about other people. MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing the proposal to remove a well documented article on the oldest surviving son and heir of an infamous Nazi Abwehr agent and American oil tycoon William Rhodes Davis. The subject of the article in question, in addition to being the son of a traitor who worked to influence the outcome of the United States presidential election, 1940 by directly funding the campaign of Wendell Willkie with funds provided for that purpose by Hermann Göring, happened to have been a young man who inherited as much as $5 million from the estate of his infamous father, a huge sum in 1941, later fathered and named after himself, the only governor of the most populous U.S. state to be recalled from office by referendum, Joseph Graham Davis, Jr., aka Gray Davis.
Joseph Graham Davis, Sr. had a placque and a tree planted in his memory in California State Capitol Museum Capitol Park, and he married a French Countess in 1965.
Considering all of the above, and my observation that there was a precedent, the article on Gustav Schwarzenegger, a seemingly insignificant man who qualified as "notable" only because he was the father of the body builder/movie star who succeeded Gray Davis as California's governor. MelanieN's reasons for disqualifying Davis, Sr., are a more compelling argument for the removal of the article on Harald Quandt, a man unknown in the U.S. and notable because of his Nazi German parents. He later operated with his half brother, their father's business holdings for a time before his early death. Joseph Graham Davis, Sr. inherited a fortune accumulated through his father's sale and refining (Davis's father owned Eurotank Refinery in Hamburg, Germany in 1940) of expropriated and embargoed Mexican petroleum to the Nazi Luftwaffe and Navy. He was the son of an infamous traitor, he named a future, very prominent governor, and he later married a French Countess. Consider permitting his wikipedia article to stay, as the articles on Gustav Schwarzenegger, Harald Quandt, as well as other examples, on (FDR's grandfather) Isaac Roosevelt, (Hillary Clinton's mother) Dorothy Howell Rodham, and Tad Lincoln, have all been accepted as covering notable individuals. Ruidoso (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Ruidoso (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is extremely well sourced. It includes links to numerous newspaper articles supporting the family realtionships. It also includes a link to a court transcript naming all of the relevant family members mentioned in the body of the article, Davis, his father, a description of the date of his father's death and of his estate, his brother's name, and his stepmother's name. His weddding announcement includes his father's name, and his second wedding announcement does, also. The wedding announcement of his daughter includes his father's name, his son, Gray Davis's given name, and his first wife, Doris Meyer's name. The obituary of Doris Meyer Morrell includes information matching the linked wedding announcements of her marriage to Joseph Graham Davis and as well as the names of each of their children. Again, the article should stay, or for the sake of uniform policy, (Is uniformity of the policy of what is or isn't notable, a goal?) the articles on Schwarzenegger's father, FDR's grandfather, Hillary Clinton's mother, and Lincoln's son should all be put through this same "process." How many men is contempary U.S. times or in its history, have been the son of a traitor and secret enemy agent, as well as the father of a prominent governor of the most populous state? Consider also, that "Gray" Davis is confusing, in that it is a nickname. Permitting an article on his father helps to explain and clear up this informal name change. Many are not even aware that he is Joseph Graham Davis, Jr. If you have a sense that Wikipedia is leaving an historic, encyclopedic record, there is a stronger argument for leaving this article in Wikipedia than there is for leaving the example articles I have presented. Ruidoso (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Overwhelming consensus to keep the majority of characters. Merge discussions should take place on the talkpages where still desired. – sgeureka t•c 07:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using:((subst:spa|username)) |
Appearing in a few episodes of the Simpsons and having a little blurb in books about the Simpsons doesn’t make you notable. I’m nominating this and a few other ancillary Simpsons characters without substantial third-party coverage (or even substantial appearances in the series) for deletion. These characters all have Wikia articles; if people want to find about them, they can a) go there, or b) Go to the general characters article, where some of their content should be merged when they’re axed. Purplebackpack89 18:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages which are also ancillary and poorly-referenced Simpsons characters (of these, Wolfcastle’s only been in ten episodes, and Radioactive in three):
Zagalejo^^^ 19:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]"There isn't room in 10 columns to discuss the delights of the Simpsons . So I will limit myself to one observation, based on an ad for the new movie, which opens Friday. The ad shows the residents of Springfield lined up to buy tickets. There are 48 characters behind Homer, and if I couldn't name every single one, I could name most and knew the personalities of the rest. That's astounding. Most novels fail to offer up even one strong, memorable character, never mind 49. There aren't that many multi-layered, deeply nuanced worlds in literature -- Proust's Combray, Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha County. Springfield, wherever it may be, is surely one of them." [12]
*Keep All I'm not much for the Simpsons (I pretty much stopped watching cartoons ca. 1979), but I have heard of all of these characters and these articles have very high traffic stats, and are (generally) well written.Bill Whittaker (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge, probably to Guest house, although the exact destination may be discussed further on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this article will ever evolve beyond being a dicdef. Maybe merge those two short lines into Guest house (lodging)? bd2412 T 17:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a little used trade name or trademark, not a generally used term: the refs (two of which are identical) are mostly promotional, the few google hits the same. Written like an advert though that could be fixed if better sources were found. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to meet notability per WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PROFESSOR Slon02 (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could certainly be wrong on this, but I was unable to find any reliable sources to verify this article's information and establish notability. If someone can find some sources I'll withdraw this nomination pronto. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was also unable to find any reliable sources for this article that would establish notability. --Slon02 (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Off2riorob insists on blanking the list. I think having an empty article is stupid, if there is no content worth keeping we should simply delete the article. Schuhpuppe (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Mosque with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The claim to notability for this film is that it "won... sixth place" in the japanese porn awards show "Pink Grand Prix." There does not appear to be any substantial coverage inependent of the subject (since the pink grand prix is an appendix of the porn-marketting machine in japan). The article is largely a vehicle to have pretty girls titties displayed. Fails GNG, FILM Bali ultimate (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hayashida Yoshiyuki, editor of P*G, host of the Pink Grand Prix, interviewed as an authority on pink film: 2002.11.26 and 2005. Dekkappai (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)
((cite book))
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)
...the high point of the pink fan's calendar has to be the annual Pink Taisho Awards every April, an all-nighter held at the Shinbungeiza theater in Tokyo's Ikebukuro district that screens the Top 5 of the year as voted for by readers of the fanzine PG. This friendly event attracts an eclectic range of viewers of both genders, from industry figures to hardcore cinephiles and the casually curious.
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The claim to notability for this film is that it "won" "honorable mention" in the japanese porn awards show "Pink Grand Prix." I belive that means that it came in out of the top 10 in this fan poll. There does not appear to be any substantial coverage inependent of the subject (since the pink grand prix is an appendix of the porn-marketting machine in japan). The article is largely a vehicle to have pretty girls titties displayed. Fails GNG, FILM Bali ultimate (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hayashida Yoshiyuki, editor of P*G, host of the Pink Grand Prix, interviewed as an authority on pink film: 2002.11.26 and 2005. Dekkappai (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)
((cite book))
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help). Dekkappai (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if these awards indicate more than local notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. One of the two keep !voters argues that this shuld be kept under IAR, if nothing else. I don't find that a reason to keep this article, and consensus is that it fails several other policies. Courcelles 01:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion a couple of times in 2006, but there are still serious issues here. The list lacks well-defined criteria, what is "oddity" supposed to mean? The article is unsourced, and has been unsourced for four years. The entire article seems to be a list of trivia which lacks focus. Without any sourcing, it is likely original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The claim to notability for this film is that it "won" eight place in the japanese porn awards show "Pink Grand Prix." That's called coming in eighth, not "winning." There does not appear to be any substantial coverage inependent of the subject (since the pink grand prix is an appendix of the porn-marketting machine in japan). The article is largely a vehicle to have pretty girls titties displayed. Fails GNG, FILM, Bali ultimate (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hayashida Yoshiyuki, editor of P*G, host of the Pink Grand Prix, interviewed as an authority on pink film: 2002.11.26 and 2005. Dekkappai (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)
((cite book))
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)
...the high point of the pink fan's calendar has to be the annual Pink Taisho Awards every April, an all-nighter held at the Shinbungeiza theater in Tokyo's Ikebukuro district that screens the Top 5 of the year as voted for by readers of the fanzine PG. This friendly event attracts an eclectic range of viewers of both genders, from industry figures to hardcore cinephiles and the casually curious.
(←) Frankly, this is getting a little silly. The issue is whether this film is notable and whether there are sufficient reliable sources to sustain a verifiable article on it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Reasonable arguments were made on both sides; there is certainly no consensus to delete this article, however. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The claim to notability for this film is that it "won" eight place in the japanese porn awards show "Pink Grand Prix." That's called coming in eighth, not "winning." There does not appear to be any substantial coverage inependent of the subject (since the pink grand prix is an appendix of the porn-marketting machine in japan). The article is largely a vehicle to have pretty girls titties displayed. Fails GNG, FILM, etc Bali ultimate (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)Dekkappai (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(←e.c.)http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~p-g/data/2004/040304/goke.htm doesn't seem "substantial" to me: it looks like a mere listing with just a plot "teaser", not even a full summary, and certainly no critical review. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hayashida Yoshiyuki, editor of P*G, host of the Pink Grand Prix, interviewed as an authority on pink film: 2002.11.26 and 2005. Dekkappai (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
References
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)
((cite book))
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)
...the high point of the pink fan's calendar has to be the annual Pink Taisho Awards every April, an all-nighter held at the Shinbungeiza theater in Tokyo's Ikebukuro district that screens the Top 5 of the year as voted for by readers of the fanzine PG. This friendly event attracts an eclectic range of viewers of both genders, from industry figures to hardcore cinephiles and the casually curious.
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help)
((cite web))
: External link in |publisher=
(help). I see no valid justification for the extreme double-standard you are applying between sub-stubs on U.S. hardcore performers and these better-sourced articles on nationally-released theatrical films in a notable, softcore Japanese genre. A genre in which many of the most high-profile, mainstream Japanese filmmakers of the last half century have worked. Dekkappai (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael-- This AfD was closed "No consensus". There's no point in continuing the debate. It's over. Apparently someone is messing with histories. Dekkappai (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. I do not see a consensus on the reference to the award. The fact that it is in Japanese does not help. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The claim to notability for this film is that it "won" eight place in the japanese porn awards show "Pink Grand Prix." That's called coming in eighth, not "winning." There does not appear to be any substantial coverage inependent of the subject (since the pink grand prix is an appendix of the porn-marketting machine in japan). The article is largely a vehicle to have pretty girls titties displayed. Fails GNG, FILM, etc... Bali ultimate (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. 02:32, 3 August 2010 Rlevse (talk | contribs) deleted "Vesuvius number nine" (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vesuvius number nine no refs, prob hoax, etc) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic, childish and non-notable but appears to escape Speedy Deletion criteria. Ben MacDui 13:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:TenPoundHammer's Law: If the name and track order aren't known yet, it's too soon for the article. Even with a band as significant as Bon Jovi, a rumored or planned project may never become a realized project. When (if) the album is released, the article can be created then. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. While the article may not be written optimally right now, it seems that Wells is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article under current general and specific notability guides. NW (Talk) 18:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia's "General Notability Guidelines" WP:GNG an topic needs to have been covered in depth in secondary sources before an article is possible. This article (as of now) has 67 sources cited. However they are all primary sources. One group is Dr. Wells' own writings and websites of organizations he is affiliated with. The other is writings of people who disagree with him and are telling us why his theories are wrong. As far as I can see there is no secondary source which gives general information on him in a neutral way. As important as he may be I don't see how this article is possible under WP's stated policies and guidelines. Wolfview (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fork of List of Pokémon which already provides a better and complete list of Pokemon. The basis of selection of numbers 1-20 is arbitrary, not supported by reliable sources and so not notable. Suggesting that there is some special relationship between these numbers is improper synthesis as this specific selection is not supported by reliable sources. It is purely a creation of Wikipedia editors and so is improper original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Colonel Warden (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Stalking#Stalking by groups. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The objective reality of the phenomenon described in this has serious verifiability problems:
Now, there might be a place for an article about the very real phenomenon of people believing that they are being stalked by shadowy conspiracies, but this isn't it: if it were to be created, it should be at gang stalking, the common name for this subject, as demonstrated by the news stories that have decribed the belief in it by that name while taking great care not to assert the objective reality of the reported phenomena.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking and Talk:Gang stalking for much, much more discussion of this subject.
That this article was created by User:Jeremystalked, an apparent single-purpose POV-pushing account devoted to similar questionable phenomena, is not encouraging, either: see their talk page for their mission statement, including the statement that "Wikipedia is just another disinformation outlet helping to blame the victims of government-sanctioned torture." The Anome (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that none is this is to assert that real-world stalking by groups of people does not happen: that's already well covered in the stalking article in the Stalking#Stalking_by_groups section. However, the purported phenomenon of "gang stalking", with its common features of vastly-well-resourced and ubiquitous teams of organized "observers" with access to mysterious psychotronic weapons, is a different matter entirely. -- The Anome (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally i would have articles on both "gang stalking" and "cause stalking" but more as plausible belief systems that tie in with some other related Wikipedia articles (such as Illuminati and Alex Jones), rather than expecting them to stand up to much academic scrutiny. That is not to say that they couldnt stand up to academic scrutiny, just that it is probably difficult to formulate academic research in this area. But believers in the Illuminati, "gang stalking" and "cause stalking" will offer tons of evidence supporting their view, but others may then provide evidence to the contrary.
We currently have an article called Structural abuse i notice which is quite closely related but I think it implies that it might be unintentional state abuse.--Penbat (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just search the text of the page for "vengeance" or "terror".Jeremystalked(law 296) 17:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but there is clearly a need to distinguish between different kinds of crimes, abuses, psychological concepts, and so on, for the benefit of the layman. So then, the question is, does 'cause stalking' deserve attention separate from religious terrorism, christian terrorism, or stalking? I would say yes:
While anti-abortion terrorists have gotten into the news for overt acts of violence, the cause stalking Lawson talks about more closely resembles classical stalking behavior, with covert violence against a target. (Stalking cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute.) Anyone who was experiencing or reporting on what Lawson is talking about would immediately classify it as a form of stalking, only picking up on the psychological torture and terroristic aspects much later.
So even though it's really terrorism, it would not be obvious as such to a disinterested third party - that is, a layman. And it is the layman these articles are being prepared for. I think it is best to stick with a form of stalking as the label.Jeremystalked(law 296) 20:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this and previous discussions about deletion of gang stalking related articles, the biases and naivete of Wikipedian editors are on public display. Above, The_Anome naively buys into the disinformation surrounding these campaigns when he talks about "vastly-well-resourced and ubiquitous teams of organized observers".[96] A large group of people would be able to plan much further ahead than a single person, who might be living from paycheck to paycheck. Getting the money to buy a house next to the target might be a simple matter of passing the collection plate at a large church. Or it might be regarded as a non-trivial expenditure, but the house can be sold or rented out later when the target has been hounded out of the area - net expenditure: $0. Basically, very little of what's going on in these campaigns has to cost a dime. You're just not looking at these things with the proper perspective.Jeremystalked(law 296) 22:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Believing that, firstly, you are important enough to other people that your enemies would attack you in a way that was complex, subtle, imperceptible to outsiders, and very expensive (in time and resources, for which money is a proxy) and then to believe that the whole rest of the world, including Wikipedia, is in on a conspiracy to cover it up, makes for a poor null hypothesis. Applying the Copernican principle to oneself is a far more parsimonious null hypothesis.
You use the term "targets". I presume that this means you consider this phenomenon to be objectively real. Can you tell me why you do so? Did you read about it somewhere, or hear about it from someone else? If so, why do you believe them? Or do you believe, from your own personal experience, that you yourself are a target of this activity? If so, how would you show an unbiased third party that that was not a delusional belief?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please provide some! -- The Anome (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem you have a fixation on focusing on the mentally ill people on the internet and applying this fixation upon real issues, as the existence of the above 3 pages and the notable reference of vengeance stalking describe. Perhaps your editing efforts should be toward your interest in mental illness?Batvette (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, synthesizing the two last concepts above into an article called "cause stalking" or "gang stalking" constitutes original research. Belief in "gang stalking", in the sense commonly used on the Internet, is well documented in reliable sources, often in the context of discussions about delusional systems and conspiracy theories; searches for sources that attest to its actual existence in a way that meets WP:V have, as far as I can see, drawn a blank. -- The Anome (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jeremystalked has offered above to create a gang stalking article that refers to this in the context of being a delusional belief system, something for which I believe we have sufficient reliable sources.
I think a way forward would be to add this material to the persecutory delusion article, and also to create a pointer to it from the stalking article.
Note that this does not give carte blanche to creating an article that contains assertions not supported by reliable sources -- such as, for example, the subject of that belief system having objective reality -- any such material would be covered by the WP:V and WP:UNDUE criteria, and would be speedy-deletable for that reason.
In the meantime, I'd like to formally re-propose the deletion of this article, based strictly on the WP:V criteria, and that we keep this discussion on-track relating strictly to Wikipedia's article inclusion criteria, rather than a discussion of the WP:TRUTH or otherwise of its contents. -- The Anome (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found a number of books on amazon that do not appear to be self published. My life changed forever Bridging the Gap 1996 Snitch Culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batvette (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Protectorsof privilledgeBatvette (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just noted that User:Jeremystalked said above, on the 2nd, that "I am forced to agree that there are not enough reliable sources to support the original contentions of the article". As he was the original creator of the article, and there are no other contributors other than Jeremystalked and myself, unless there is evidence that this is no longer the case (and I can't see any in the discussion above), I'd suggest that this pretty much closes the issue. -- The Anome (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So since The Anome has graciously conceded that there are criminal acts being perpetrated against individuals, or the ordinary and well attested phenomen of stalking by groups of people, I would like him to kindly provide the name of this activity, and at least one reference to it that meets wiki standards, so we can begin to work on this page. Since the justice department concedes these crimes as well I for one am dying to know why they're doing this and who they are. If we don't give these crimes he's talking about some attention we at wikipedia would be irresponsible as a source of information.Batvette (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can find no RS to support assertions of notability not even an IMDb entry, fails WP:GNG –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Nightmare (album). JForget 01:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet the requirements of WP:NSONG - "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." It doesn't appear to be a released single, have charted, or have any other specific notability. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems contrary to our policies that Wikipedia is not sprawling lists of statistics or routine sports reports. All we have here are some meagre sporting results of no great significance or notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted because no content or context Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andreasm just talk to me 08:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted no content Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andreasm just talk to me 08:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close. Author of the current version blanked the page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
previously deleted in an AfD in 2006... doesn't seem to be any more notable now. The-Pope (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not add anything that the category system already does. (i.e. Category:Agriculture by country). Please, See Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architecture of present-day nations and states, an AfD recently closed as Delete, and in which those articles were named (but without being actually tagged). I am also nominating the following for the same reason:
-- Maashatra11 (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 18:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was given an award by the ADHD Coaches Organization (ACO) at thier conference in St. Louis two years ago that read "To Ken Zaretzky, MCC who Named the ADHD Coaches Organization and who proposed the fundamental definition of what it means to be an ADHD Coach, who served as membership chair, marketing chair and founding board member from 2005 to 2008. With great thanks for your vision, determinination and entrepreneurial zeal without which this organization would not exist." And it was signed by Sarah D. Wright. MS, ACT who was the president of the organization at that time. That certainly sounds like a founder to me. Would it be useful If I were to contact him and ask him to provide a scan of that award? Would that establish that he was a founder? (This information is all on thier website). As far as having a vested interested goes I am in the same field and believe that one of our "giants" belongs in wikipedia. Why has nobody mentioned the ADDitude magazine article about couples with ADHD which is essentially an interview with a couple who were clients of his discussing thier issues and how he coached them through them? The mans picture is even in that article. There is also a link to a television show about ADHD Coaching featuring both him and his client. There is not a great deal of information on ADHD Coaching out there period but an awful lot what does mentions him in it. Just for kicks I googled him and contrary to what I have seen someone else say I got over 6100 hits. Could it be that we are dealing with a giant (notable) figure in a small field? The information out there very clearly proves that "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Once again, he isn't notable as a politician, or an inventor or a movie star or as a criminal. He is notable in HIS field. If you'll do a little searching yourself I think you'll find that he is likely the most notable ADHD Coach there is. clutz8672 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.227.194 (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC) — 98.220.227.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I keep hearing that this is a community, What I see is a group of mean, immature, bullish and vindictive people. I always thought of that as a mob. When will an administrater take a look at this and make a decision so I can go back to playing with adults? Yesimhuman (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JForget 00:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a recipe. Other than that, is this really a usable article? Raymie Humbert (t • c) 05:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Feel free to restore it once it passes WP:HAMMER. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL; a lot of self-published blogs and first-hand sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enough verifiable information now to justify the page. Likely to be added to with further such information. Would be better not to delete a page that is 'on the up' like this. Like all Wiki pages, it is a 'work in progress'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.166.104 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JForget 00:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declined A7 nominee. Has one reference that cleared it for A7, but one source does not clear WP:GNG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There are three guidelines relating to this topic, and all have been brought up in the discussion. WP:Source list indicates that lists should be sourced in the same manner as articles - while this list is currently unsourced, it is quite clear that as the list topic is factual and notable there will be no problem sourcing it, so therefore that it currently has no references is not a reason for deletion. WP:CLN was mentioned. That guideline provides no argument for deleting this list - indeed, it explains how such a list can work with the existing category, and gives a useful guide to the advantages of such a list. WP:SALAT does point out that lists which are "too general or too broad in scope" may not be useful, and then proceeds to indicate that splitting such lists into sections may assist the reader - and this list does have some sections, and the potential to be managed even further. That there is already an existing category indicates that the topic of this list is seen to have educational and research value. SilkTork *YES! 14:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has category. Completely unmanagable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I'm gonna just go ahead and close this, the IP is exactly right, on recently added to main page, and needing to preserve the history (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exact same stuff already listed at How_It's_Made#Episodes, don't need two listings CTJF83 chat 03:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
probable hoax, otherwise no assertion of notability. See Talk:Monticlair Nutly for detailed reasoning. Prod contested by author. -kotra (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Scott Mac 14:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since most of the Premiere League, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga have their reserve and youth players on their main article, the mexican league reserves should also be in the main article. The Mexican reserve team articles are unsourced and are poorly written. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also reserve player articles:
GoPurple'nGold24 01:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. no consensus to delete, without prejudice to a merge being worked out elsewhere Scott Mac 14:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main podcast itself, Never Not Funny, is certainly notable. However, there is no reason to have individual season pages, and none of these pages have any actual sources that provide notability apart from the main show, and notability is not inherited. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 16:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Scott Mac 14:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does this bootleg recording meets the notability criteria for albums? Cannibaloki 23:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep due to withdrawal of nomination by nominator. (non-admin closure) Maashatra11 (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An admin declined prod with this reason : "Sources are likely not to be in English; places are inherently notable unless provably non-existent". There are no sources to prove the existence of this place. Unless someone provides a reliable, secondary source, I can't see the point in keeping this article. Maashatra11 (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. the article is now sourced, so the reason for the nominaiton is moot. If there's another reason for deletion, this close should not prejudice a renom on those grounds. Scott Mac 23:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unreferenced BLP that has been tagged for improvement since Feb. 2008. The article gives no reliable sources to support any claim of notability. Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review 24th June 2010. Papaursa (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to it this weekend, found a bunch of the issues. Regarding Astudent's statement, per guidelines whether or not the reference is directly available to you to read online is irrelevant. That's not a requirement for usage. What is required is that the statements are sources to a reliable (i.e. editorial oversight) and notable sources, both of whick are satisfied by those published magazines. And of course that any content in the article stays within BLP. I've been involved in bringing articles to GA status before, I'm familiar with what contstitutes reliability and notability in source and content. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, added the first reference and I'm realizing this article is going to need almost a complete rewrite. I'm not happy it's falling solely on me (since I'm not even affiliated with him or that organization), but as a member of the martial arts project (and active there in relation to this art of Wing Chun) as the saying goes "If not me, who else?" I will embark on the rewrite and significant adding of references this weekend. Just don't have time during the week right now. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing to do so. Found copies of two of the magazines, the Martial Arts and Combat Sports cover issue is a long feature article on him. The IKF issue is a direct interview. Taking a break, will do more later tonight. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of DirecTV channels (United States) and List of Dish Network channels in the United States. JForget 00:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a batch nomination. I had prodded some but people didn't like the idea it was piecemeal. 38 articles in total. They are all "List of [Satellite provider] channels x-x".
This is classic almanac and not a directory territory. Moreover it's a straight duplication of List of DirecTV channels (United States), but without the text or context that makes it an encyclopedia article. There are similar articles I believe for other country listings too. Let's keep them all in the same place. Breaking this up like this makes no sense, creates a logistical nightmare, and is outside of policy. Shadowjams (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Full list List of Dish Network channels 5600-5709 List of Dish Network channels 6600-6699 List of Dish Network channels 6700-6799 List of Dish Network channels 9300-9392 List of Dish Network channels 9200-9299 List of Dish Network channels 9100-9199 List of Dish Network channels 9000-9099 List of Dish Network channels 8900-8999 List of Dish Network channels 8800-8899 List of Dish Network channels 8700-8799 List of Dish Network channels 8600-8699 List of Dish Network channels 8500-8599 List of Dish Network channels 8400-8499 List of Dish Network channels 8300-8399 List of Dish Network channels 8200-8299 List of Dish Network channels 8100-8199 List of Dish Network channels 8000-8099 List of Dish Network channels 7900-7999 List of Dish Network channels 7400-7499 List of Dish Network channels 7500-7599 List of Dish Network channels 7600-7699 List of Dish Network channels 7700-7799 List of Dish Network channels 7800-7899 List of Dish Network channels 7000-7099 List of Dish Network channels 7100-7199 List of Dish Network channels 7200-7299 List of Dish Network channels 7300-7399 List of DirecTV channels 400-499 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 500-599 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 600-699 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 700-799 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 800-899 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 1000-1999 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 2000-2999 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 9500-9999 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 300-399 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 200-299 (United States) List of DirecTV channels 1-199 (United States)
The result was redirect to Speech Debelle. JForget 00:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a slam dunk case of WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. Previous PROD (by me) was removed by an anonymous IP editor without comment or improvement to the article. By the way, I see no problem with mentioning at the artist's article that a new album is in the works. But what's known about the album now is not even close to what is required for an album article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not notable, at least not yet, I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Bringing it here to get more eyes on it. Nuujinn (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. He had (at the age of 12) the lead/title role in a hit West End musical. I added a couple of references to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While getting bought out by AlienWare can be notable, I'm not sure a company who maxed out a $5 million of sales of year is notable enough. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to UFO: Enemy Unknown. (already done) and the redirect is costless Scott Mac 13:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NB and WP:GNG - no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Claritas § 19:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this novel fails WP:NB then so does the Star Wars novelization. I don't think anyone here would suggest the article for that novel be deleted. Kurt (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete A10. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This song does not appear to be notable on its own to merit an article. Further, the precision title is unnecessary; if someone things this page is necessary, it should at least be moved (without redirect) to Worn Me Down. But again, why is this particular song with having an article? There's no indication why. — Timneu22 · talk 12:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. sufficient consensus that she is notable enough due to extensive coverage JForget 00:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrespawn's main activity seems to be getting herself in trouble. No notability, serious BLP questions -- her sorrows are referenced, but even so do we need to shout them at the world? == no article. Herostratus (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We also do not limit Wikipedia to articles on people who we think have made constructive contributions to the world, which would also be an unworkable and completely POV standard. I don't think Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian have made any lasting contributions to...anything...but they are indisputably notable despite being, in my POV, useless (see also Virginie Amélie Avegno Gautreau for someone I've often thought of as a 19th century Paris Hilton; when the first and most apt word to describe someone's accomplishments is "socialite", you probably haven't done much to advance civilization). And how could I forget: The New York Times ran a feature entirely about Snooki for god's sake.[109] Such is western culture. I think this is overused as a retort, but here it is appropriate: please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT and rethink your comments. postdlf (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is largely promotional in nature and lacks references. I've looked about for references and am not finding anything beyond the usual press releases. Company and software appears to me to be non-notable. Nuujinn (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Un-referenced non-notable band. -- Silentdowner (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. no arguments for deletion except the nom JForget 00:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 21:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article was proposed for deletion by User:Ironholds, who claimed it's about a Win32 data structure that is no more notable than any other Win32 data structure. I then deleted the article once the proposal for deletion period had expired. The author later contacted me to ask for it to be undeleted. I personally think User:Ironholds is right, that the data structure is hardly specially notable, but the author has a steadfast opinion that the data structure deserves its own article, so I have undeleted the article and nominated it for deletion as advised at WP:DRV. My vote is weak delete. JIP | Talk 10:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:AUTHOR.No references. Even in Persian, most of the sources are blogs and no reliable sources.Farhikht (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No agreement on the suitability of the sources provided. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. Suggested by a couple users at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Her_Majesty's_Wizard. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 17:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]